vacate. >> other amendments to title ix? gentleman from virginia seeks recognition. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. trying to find the number. it's the only other one that i have, if that helps. >> i'm always optimistic when it's the last amendment that a person has. >> i think that is right. yes, number 30. >> would the clerk distribute amendment number 30 and the gentleman is recognized for his explanation whenever he is prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment i offer today with my colleague jean schmidt, would repeal the authorization of funds advertising the supplemental nutrition assistance program. we have seen the snap program grow, and for better or worse, it's a part of every day life for some citizens, according to estimates, 1 in 7 people are receiving snap benefits.

at a time when 1 in 7 people are receiving the snap benefits, i question why we need to advertise. i don't know how we can justify spending $5 million a year to advertise the snap program. it's an ineffective use of taxpayer funds to eliminate hunger. it does not put food on the plates of those that are hungry. our amendment strikes the funding for advertising and would transfer it to commodity payments for the emergency food assistance program. or tfap, i believe food banks do a great job of assisting those in need. tfap commodities are critical to food banks ability to meet the need for emergency food assistance in communities across the nation, it will move funds from an account that does not

put a calorie on a hungry person plate and move it to food banks. i yield to the gentlewoman from ohio. >> thank you for allowing me to have time on this. when i hear radio ads on how to find out how to qualify for snap. we have so few dollars to answer this hunger problem and i feel we are wasting it on advertising. we don't need to be doing this. and when mr. goodlat brought up the fact that tfap, the money will go to tfap, that directly helps food banks, they are running shortages because of if peop the -- the people coming to them. the need for food banks is

growing and if we can put another $5 million in tfap that will go to food banks instead of wasting it on radio advertising, i say amen to that, so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> would the gentleman yield for a question? >> happy to yield. >> i'm interested, i tend to support what you are trying to do here, if it's just radio advertising. but i want to make sure it's not things like point of sale information or information on how to apply, those kind of real world kind of necessity types of information. can you make that guarantee to us today? >> the intention of the amendment is to limit the advertising, informational material at the point of applying for food stamp benefits, i think certainly would not be included in that, because they need that information to make the application. but we certainly would not

object to making that clear as we move forward if this amendment is added to the bill. >> gentleman, yield back? >> yeah, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> chairman, i am going to support this amendment. this and something i hear about at home, and actually get irritated myself when i hear the ads to radio. so i'm going to support this and i'm going to take my time to tell members or inform members that we have 61 amendments. and possibly 22 of them would have recorded votes. and we are going to get done tonight come hell or high water. so, you know, we all kind of know everyone's position on a lot of these things so maybe we can just move it along a little quicker. and you know --

>> such pearls of wisdom from the ranking member. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> i move for a voice vote. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, and gentleman yields back, we will proceed to a vote on amendment number 30. all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> all those opposed. >> no. >> the ayes appear to have it, the ayes appear to have it, amendment number 30 is adopted. are there additional amendments to title number four? >> we have an amendment at the desk, it's number 73. clerk will pass out amendment number 73. gentleman is recommendizgnized

proceed with his kplangz. >> i would urge the adoption by voice vote. >> worked with you before. >> i guess this is an attempt here to try to find some ground here, where we can make some reform. the number of amendments have been introduced about this laheep strategy that states can send a dollar worth of benefits and it activates other snap benefits. i think this bill sets the threshold at $10 a year. if the state sends $.83 a month to a beneficiary, it triggers the benefits. what my amendment does is change that threshold to $50 a year, which is, you know, about $4 and some change a month of benefits. if someone is really in need, they are going to be receiving

more than $4 in benefits per month. so, i think this is a reasonable compromise, finding a level that will keep the states from, you know, using this leveraging and in many cases the states by the way are using federal dollars to leverage federal dollars because some of the money is coming from the department of energy as the members know. so with that, mr. chairman, i would urge adoption. this is a common sense. it doesn't cut benefits, it just says that the threshold for the program would have to be $50 and not $10. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yeemds back, and the -- yields back and the chairman yields himself five minutes. >> i appreciate my friend from texas's concerns, i have to remind everyone that we have

achieved a balance in the bill, and it's in the best interest of the bill and successful reform to maintain it. we have taken under consideration to try to achieve the balance and establish the minimum. the bill -- i realize we will fight on the skirmish line all the way back to atlanta, and we will, so with that, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and in the spirit of the ranking member. and his comments i yield. >> and i would remind members this deal has been in the law since 1982. and it has survived the entire contract with america and 12 years of republican control. so, you know, we are willing to reform it, but this is not necessary. so, vote no. >> gentleman yields back, i

yield back, seeing any further recognition request, i see none. all in favor of the amendment say aye? >> aye. >> all those saying no say no. >> the nos appear to have it. the nos appear to have it. the nos do have it. amendment number 73 fails. do we have additional amendments for title number four and i would look to this side and see no additional amendments, you turn to the gentleman from texas. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 33 and the gentleman may proceed. >> this is not new territory for the house since we have done it before in other committees on other bills. it attempts to expand on bipartisan work by weighs and means resources, across programs to operate more efficiently. the amendment instructs the

secretary of agriculture with other departments, such as the department of public health, with states to standardize program data. this no cost provision has been already signed into law by the president. there are many snap recipients that interact with the data and we should expect the same. to standardize the data, it will improve the efficiency of the programs, and improve the program integrity to make sure that program money is paid only to qualifying individuals. the data can be searched and analyzed to better target benefits, identify, waste, fraud and abuse. expanding the effort to snap will help us move closer to a

beneficiary approach to safety net programs so we can help people and not manage numbers. given the tough budget road ahead. i urge support for the amendment to standardize program data, it forms the foundation of moving to maximizing taxpayer programs and assuring that safety net programs provide support efficiently. i yield back. >> ranking member seeks recognition. >> strike the last word and recognized for five minutes. >> i support the amendment, it's standard language that has been requested by weighs and means u we were told that they could already do this. i don't think it arms anything. and basically we are just trying to make sure the departments have databases that are speaking in the same language and we have been working on that in other areas as well sompt it's a good amendment. i -- so it's a good amendment, i

urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. >> seeing an additional request for recognition, seeing none, seeing none, seeing none, we will proceed to vote. all those in favor of amendment 33 signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the ayes appear to have it, the ayes appear to visit, the ayes indeed do have it. are there additional amendments to title four? t the gentleman from kansas is recognized. >> i have amendment number 37. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 37. >> i should not need that much time, again, it's amendment related to the liheep issue, and as the base bill stands now, the loophole would not close or shrink, however you look at that more than a year from now, would

be october first, the 2013. my amendment would set a hard deadline offan first of 2013, when we would begin that particular reform, i may note as well, in addition to the october 1st deadline, 2013, states have the option of waiting 180 days. so actually, this particular reform, under the reform in number states would not occur until april of 2000 and 14. this simply sets a hard deadline of january 1st of 2013. if this is a good reform, and it seems to be the bipartisan approach, it should happen quickly on january 1st 2013. and with that i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back his time. and the chair recognizes himself to strike the last word and for five minutes, i continue to appreciate my colleague's interest in this.

in all fairness, i must continue to oppose these type of amendments, we have crafted a delicate compromise and i believe it needs to be maintained. i must be compelled to ask my colleagues to vote this down. all those in favor of amendment number 37. say so by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the nos appear to have it, the nos appear to have it, and the nos do indeed have it. the amendment fails. are there additional amendments to title four. gentleman from texas is recognize rd. >> i have an amendment to this, number 75, this is a very simple amendment. >> one moment, sir, the clerk will distribute number 75, and the gentleman may proceed when he is ready.

>> it requires the states to turn in a report to verify that they are working with the social security administration that people are not dual enrolled in snap. if they fail to submit reports the federal reimbursement will be cut by 50%. the administration of the cost -- cbo has said that the amendment has really no impact on spending but this is, i think a common sense thing that we want to ensure that these states are making every effort that they can to make sure that the people that are receiving these benefits are not deceased and family members are gaining it or that someone has found a way to dual enroll. so this should be a bipartisan support of this. it's good administration of the

program. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. >> gentleman yields back. i commend the attempts to make sure only eligible individuals are getting benefits. i support the amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so as well. >> yield back. >> seeing no additional requests for recognition, seeing none, seeing none, will now proceed to vote on amendment number 75, all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed. the ayes have it, the ayes have it, the ayes do indeed have it. amendment number 75 is dominated. are there additional amendments to title four? seeing no additional amendments to title 4, seeing no additional amendments, there are no additional amendments to title

4, title 4 is closed! [ applause ] council? it's time for an explanation of title 5. and since i do not find my magic words, i ask by unanimous consent that the explanation for title number 5, the credit title be dispensed with. seeing no objection, seeing no objection, so order. title 5, the credit title is now open for amendment. the gentle lady, is recognized to offer an amendment. what is your amendment number? >> i have two amendments and if

it would be okay, i would like to do them both at the same time, number 49 and 50. >> clerk will distribute number 49 and 50. and the lady may begin when she is prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i would like to thank my colleague and friend for joining me in amendment number 49. the amendment would improve federal agricultural credit programs to better meet the needs of young, beginning and other nontraditional farmers and ranchers. capitol is the number one need of farmers and ranchers in the united states. the amendment will establish a microloan program that will enable these farmers to access capitol for their unique needs and reflect the scale of their operations. while usda is creating a microloan product, they have no authorization to do so.

farmers in districts like mine face hurdles in obtaining loans through existing programs. loan requests by these farmers and other nontraditional farmers fall into the same pool with all fsa borrows. the same rules and the loan limit apply, however many do not need a large loan and they cannot meet all the credit requirements. so our amendment would allow fsa to make smaller loans for up to $35,000, taylored to meet the needs of beginning, young farmers and ranchers. it will authorize a microloan program that would be funded out of the existing loan portfolios. it would streamline the application process, in order to facilitate participation and increase program efficiency. i urge my colleagues to support

the program. and i yield back on amendment number 49. >> the gentlelady yields back on amendment 49. are there additional requests? >> strike last word. >> gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i'm not sure which number it is, but the explanation that she said that available to youth ten years old. >> what? >> available to youth ages 10 to 20. so we will loan a 10-year-old $75,000? >> what are you looking at? >> that must be a typo. i don't see -- >> it's to explanation page. >> if it's 10, it's 10. >> it's the wrong amendment, you are looking at 50. instead of 49. >> they are not numbered. >> the gentleman would yield on the explanation page that i have

for amendment number 49, it references eligible beginning of farmer's and ranchers would be 19 to 40 years of age. >> that is correct. >> is there a number that we are supposed to be able to tell which is 49 and 50? >> i don't know. >> okay. >> clearly, clerical work will be done in the area. >> the one that is 49 should say microloans. >> that is the one i'm addressing at this moment. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> gentleman yield back? the chair moves to strike the last word, and yield myself five minutes. having looked at this amendment, and the following amendment, i believe they are well intentioned. i believe that they are something that we need to continue to discuss in the process and i would recommend do my colleagues that we accept

both this one and the next one. and i would say to my good friend, that is the best hope you can hope for. i yield back. >> that is the best i can hope for. >> any additional requests for time? recognition i mean? additional requests? seeing none, we will proceed to vote on amendment number 49, and all those in favor of amendment 49, say aye? >> aye. >> opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes appear to visit, the ayes appear to visit, the ayes do have it. the amendment is adopted, and the gentlelaiddy is recommengni. >> currently, usda youth operating loans are only for those youth in rural areas. it is unfair. it should not be the policy of

our government to afford opportunities to one part of the community or another. there's no reason why youth loans should operate under a different standard. supporting the farmers of the future that will gross the produce that will keep our nation healthy is an important responsibility. to ensure that we have enough farmers to meet the needs of future generations. we need to urge youth to be in the industry. it's a booming, and often forgotten area of farming. today city youth are selling produce at farmer's markets. it only makes sense that the programs we authorize should reflect the trends and needs of the nation. youth in urban and suburban areas are excited about growing fresh fruits and vegetables and

to serve the needs of their communities. let's give them the opportunity to receive the support they need to succeed. while at the same time, ensuring that we have a sufficient farming workforce to feed the people of this country for generations to come. i urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment. >> do you yield back? >> i yield back. seeing any additional requests for recognition, seeing none we will vote on amendment number 50. all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposedd signify b saying no. >> the ayes appear to have it, the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. >> are there additional amendments to title number 5? gentleman from iowa seeks recognition. >> chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 68, i believe it is. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 68 and the

gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes to explain when he is ready. >> this amendment would ensure farm access to credit by repealing term limits on loans backed by the farm service agency. we discussed this before in the farm bill, but things change, so we would like to talk about it just a little bit. currently fsa offers loan guarantees to farmers and ranchers with weaker financial profiles that would not otherwise qualify for credit. the loans are made and serviced by a lender with fsa backing up to 90% of the principal and interest. a combination of high feed and other input costs, increase operating capitol needs, that means some producers are still denied commercial credit. while federal law limits borrows with guaranteeing operating loans to 15 years of

eligibility, congress waived the limitations several times. most recently in the 2008 farm bill. the current lapse comes with thousands of family farmers facing the tightest agricultural credit market in 20 years. just as the demand for fsa farm loan assistance reaches the highest levels as 1985. the height of the farm crisis. i could tell you something about that. if you would care to hear about it. as of april 5, 2011, for than 4,500 guaranteed loan borrowers did not qualify for additional loan guarantees and more become ineligible at the end of 2012. the success and benefit of the loans are felt around the nation and are often used to lending to young and beginning farmers and ranchers who are hoping to carry to farming

tradition. i might add it's supported by the american banking association. by independent community bankers and by the farm credit council. with that, i would ask for support and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> does ranking member seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman strikes the last word? >> yes. this was an issue in the last farm bill we discussed. you know, even though it says there's a 15 year limit, there have been people that have been to program for much longer than that. if you don't, if you remove this, what is going to happen is those people will stay on there and the new folks that want to get access will not be able to get access, because there's not enough guarantee funds. so, you know, i just -- i think there could be individual cases where there's sympathy. but, you know, people should not be on the government loans forever. i would argue against the amendment, even though there's

some of my good friends, including good friend boswell who is on the other side. so yield back. >> gentleman yeemds back, additional request for anyone? >> additional recognition? >> yes, move to strike the last word. >> strike the last word. >> well, thank you, very much. i expected my good friend, ranking member to say what he has. but there are those individuals out there, and i think everybody in the room that is affiliated with the agricultural and farming know that they are. and some of them are justified to have this. so, it's working, it's been on a while. i would recommend we consider carrying on this for at least through this farm bill. with that, i would yield back to you. >> i have no further comments, therefore i yield back the balance of my time.

>> gentleman yeemd yields back,g no additional request for recognition, we will proceed to vote on amendment number 68, all in favor of amendment number 68 will signify so by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> no. >> the nos appear to have it. the nos appear to have it. the nos do indeed have it. the amendment is defeated. are there additional amendments to title 5? gentleman from nebraska seeking recognition. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 96. that i have to withdraw, but i would like a few moments to explain it. >> would you like for the clerk to distribute your amendment or would you just prefer to explain it? >> i'll just